Re: Hash Function: MD5 or other?

--- Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> Note that MD5 is slow and CPU-intensive. By design.
>
> If you want a quick way to find matching records then you might find
> something
> like CRC to be more useful. With MD5 it's supposed to be hard for
> someone to
> come up with inputs that hash to a target value, but if you're not
> too worried
> about people trying to do that then MD5 is probably overkill.
>

$ ./hash -b

CRC32: 302.78 MB/sec
HAVAL 128: 165.33 MB/sec
HAVAL 160: 178.69 MB/sec
HAVAL 192: 124.74 MB/sec
HAVAL 224: 123.05 MB/sec
HAVAL 256: 98.14 MB/sec
MD2: 9.03 MB/sec
MD4: 233.36 MB/sec
MD5: 105.39 MB/sec
Panama: 311.21 MB/sec
RIPEMD-128: 129.88 MB/sec
RIPEMD-160: 76.75 MB/sec
SHA1: 135.40 MB/sec
SHA256: 49.42 MB/sec
SHA384: 32.77 MB/sec
SHA512: 31.58 MB/sec
Tiger: 54.02 MB/sec
Whirlpool: 17.51 MB/sec

Elapsed time: 3.56 seconds
Average throughput: 121.06 MB/s

Granted, MD5 isn't the quickest hashing algorithm out there but it is
certainly fast enough for general use IMO.

Regards,

Shelby Cain

__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html